1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The aim of this study was to assess the unique and interactive contributions of hyperactivity to the development of criminality, whilst considering inattention, physical aggression and family adversity.» (p. 1)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«We hypothesized that the divergent results regarding the role of hyperactivity in the two previous large prospective population studies mentioned in the introduction […] could be due in part to the difference in age when hyperactivity was assessed: a significant role of hyperactivity was found in the study with earlier behavioral assessments–8 years old […].» (p. 6)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«The 2,741 participants (1,398 boys) were attending kindergarten in Quebec’s French-speaking public schools (Canada) between 1986 and 1988.» (p. 2)

Instruments :
Questionnaires

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«We explored a number of potential issues that could have prevented adequate assessment of hyperactivity’s contribution to criminality. We found that two hyperactivity trajectories, based on two informants and 7 years of assessment were predictive in survival analyses modeling the occurrences of crimes until 25 years of age. However, the role of hyperactivity was not true for all trajectories and was not verified consistently in sensitivity analyses. To conclude, although the contribution of childhood hyperactivity to criminality might be detected in large samples with strong multi-informant longitudinal designs, it is not, by far, the best predictor of later criminality.» (p. 6) The authors studied many family factors that are regrouped in what they call ‘family adversity’: «[…] 1) family structure (intact or not intact), 2) parents’ levels of education, 3) parents’ occupational status [37] and 4) parents’ age at the birth of the first child.» (p.2) «Family adversity was a strong predictor in itself as in previous studies but we detected no interaction with hyperactivity.» (p. 6)